E 713 
.A24 
Copy 1 



E 713 
.024 

Copy I 



vJAN WE AFFORD 

TO RULE 

SUBJECT PEOPLES? 



- BY 

FELIX ADLER. 



Extracts from an Address delivered before the Scclety • 
for Ethical Culture, March J8, J900. 



published by the 
Anti-Imperiallst League of New York, 

150 Nassau Street. 



.^' 



Gift 

Gen. W. Birney 

« 2 '06 



Can we afford to rule Sul:)ject 
Peoples ? 



[Extracts from an address delivered before the 
Society for Ethical Culture of New York on 
March 18, 1900, by Prof. FELIX ADLER]. 

I plead the duty to-day for everyone not to decide 
upon this great question hastily, but to reflect, and. 
so far as he or she is able, try and influence the 
decision of the American people in the right direction. 
I plead for deliberation; for the forecasting of conse- 
quences. I plead that that precious instrument of de- 
liberation, the kindliest aid for wise counsel and wise 
action, should not be insidiously wrested from our 
grasp; because that is what those are trying to do, who 
would commit us to the policy of ruling subject races, 
and they try to urge upon us that discussion is of no 
use. They try to wrest the deliberation from our grasp, 
and it is not a sign of the strength of their position, but 
it is the plan which so many of them pursue. There- 
fore, before I consider the pros and cons of the ques- 
tion itself, I want to brush away some of these argu- 
ments which are used, having for their object to cut off 
discussion and extinguish deliberation. 

In the first place it is said, "It is too late — the Phil- 
ippines are ours, for good or evil. What is the use of 

3 



further discussing the policy. The milk is spilled, what 
is the use of crying? You might just as well battle 
with your naked hands against an iron door to make it 
yield as to protest against the fait accompli — the accom- 
plished fact." This is false. We do possess the Philip- 
pines, but the question of what we are to do with them 
is open. Congress has not yet decided — no one has de- 
cided. There are still four possible courses open to us: 
We might to-day give up possession; we might retire 
and leave the inhabitants of the Archipelago to their 
own devices. I think that very few persons would ad- 
vocate that course. Certainly I am not among the 
number. Then we might organize them into territories, 
with a view of finally admitting them as states. I think 
that there are very few who would advocate that policy. 
At all events, I am not of that number. Then there are 
the real alternatives — to rule over them as a subject 
people, or to prepare them for independence. That is 
the question that I propose to discuss to-day. These 
are the two alternative courses; to decide that llicy 
shall be ours — our subjects — or that we must be their 
stay and prop until such time as they can stand alone, 
but with the declared and avowed intention that that 
time shall come; that we shall prepare and educate them 
for it; that it is our aim and object to make them inde- 
pendent. Subjection or independence. Not necessar- 
ily immediate independence, but independence, finally, 
on the one hand; subjection on the other. That is the 
alternative upon which the American people must de- 
cide. I would that it were more clearly stated through- 
out the length and breadth of the land. 

This first argument, thus, that the matter is all de- 
cided, and that the discussion is a belated one, is false. 
Another argument that is often used is that whether, 
ostensibly, *»>« auestion is open or not, really, in effect, 

4 



the thing is decided; that there is a tendency among 
the American people to get possession and to keep it, 
and that that tendency is final. There are ciuite a num- 
ber of learned gentlemen to-day who are studying this 
doctrine. Here is one: "Instincts which control the 
action of masses of men respond to appropriate stimuli 
with a regularity that suggests little dependence on ar- 
gument and deliberation. The crisis came and we acted 
as our impulse dictated. The consciousness of power 
as naturally expresses itself in self-assertion as the con- 
sciousness of weakness expresses itself in submission." 
It is, thus, the doctrine of the irresponsibility of the 
masses. But I confess that this doctrine, with its exal- 
tation of impttlse, does not appear to me either a very 
new or a very respectable one; nor does it appear to 
me as one which should be met on theoretical grounds 
chiefly. Rather does the appeal lie to the facts. As a 
matter of fact, is there such a thing as a national con- 
science, or is there not? Are we to say that nations, 
any more than individuals, have the right to dress up 
their covetousncss and their cupidity, and call them 
manifest destiny? There are these impulses, and they 
are strong; but there are also counter impulses that 
have for their effect to safeguard deliberation, and de- 
liberation has for its effect to bring into view our ul- 
terior and lasting interests, in contrast with the desire 
of the moment, and the interests and rights of others 
which we are bound to respect. Manifest destiny is 
only a more grandiloquent term for manifest tempta- 
tion, but it does not mean that we are bound to suc- 
cumb. 

Biit now, after this preliminary review of the argu- 
ments which are intended to cut ofif deliberation, let us 
consider the two alternative courses — either of holding 
these people in subjection, or the other. And what are 

5 



the reasons advanced in favor of ruling subject races? 
The first reason is tiie commercial reason. I am afraid 
the trail of commercialism is over our Phillippine war. 
Says the Senator from Indiana: "The Phillippines are 
ours forever, and beyond them is China and its illimit- 
able markets, and we will not retract from either." 
Says the Washington Post: "Why not tell the truth and 
3ay what is the fact — that we want Cuba, Porto Rico, 
Hawaii and Luzon, and any other islands in either 
ocean that may hereafrer commend themselves to ou"- 
appetite, because we believe they will add to our na- 
tional strength, and because we hope they will some 
day become purchasers at our bargain counter. We 
might as well throw off the pious mask." Yes, indeed, 
they might as well throw off the pious mask. The sick- 
ening, sanctimonious use of humanitarian phrases is, at 
any rate, mo.re repulsive than this rank brutality. Are 
the sanctimonious ])hrases that cover the commercial 
motive going to deceive us? Commercial increase is 
very well; no one objects to that. New markets, large 
sales — we are not opposing legitimate expansion; but 
is commercial expansion to be purchased at the ex- 
pense of every principle of right and justice? It is not 
even true that we need the Philippines; that it will be 
to our interest to have them. On purely commercial 
grounds, it is a bad investment. How many millions 
more shall we have to spend before we subjugate the 
islands, and in order to keep them subjugated? How 
many millions in order to protect that vast sea coast 
irom foreign invasion. Then consider what ex-Secre- 
tary Olney has pointed out — that we cannot develop 
these resources of the Philippines unless we employ 
coolie labor. If that be so, shall we who have abol- 
I'ihed slavery in our own country return to a modified 
form of slavery in the Philippines? The outcome of it 
6 



all is that from the purely commercial point of view, 
the possession of the Phillippincs vvoitid be of advan- 
tage to a limited number of speculating capitalists, un- 
questionably; but it would yield no advantage, only dis- 
advantage commercially to the American people. 

An honest argument in favor of going into this busi- 
ness is that we need it for our instruction, for our edu- 
cation. Even Mr. Olney, who does not approve of the 
plan, seems to think that there is this advantage, that 
we are going to be less provincial. But does it not 
seem to you that we are already fairly leaving provin- 
cialism behind us, and that our horizon is widening by 
natural development? We were provincial because we 
lacked culture. The more culture advances, the more 
we shall have provincialism behind us. Is it necessary 
for us to engage in strife with other nations in order 
to broaden our human sympathy? Is it necessary to 
knock a man down in order to make his better ac- 
quaintance? 

Now, the great argument — the one that has had the 
most influence: "We must follow the example of Eng- 
land." That has had the greatest efYect in turning peo- 
ple in the direction of this new departure. "The ex- 
ample of England." England is the born ruler of sub- 
ject peoples, and England is virtually, it is said, a 
democracy. What England has done, cannot wc do? 
Now, it is not true that England is virtually a democ- 
racy. There are two points to be considered. We 
want to ask ourselves, "Can we do what England has 
done?" And then, "Ought we to do it, even if we 
could?" Now, can we do it? The government of Eng- 
land is not like the government of the United States. 
There is still in England a very strong monarchical feel- 
ing. Then there is the attitude of deference towards 
ene's social betters. That i.s decision. That is present 

7 



in England and lacking with us; and this brings it about 
that the heirs of ancient families feel a certain position 
and exercise a certain influence, both politically and 
socially, which we must understand, because it is vital 
to the understanding of the difference between England 
and America. These representatives of ancient families 
form a permanent class of rulers. They are born to 
rule. There is a class of permanent rulers, born rulers; 
and, what is much more important, the|' are the nucleus 
of a larger body of rulers. This aristocracy of birth at- 
tracts to itself the aristocracy of intellect, ind holds up 
the whole class of English rulers to j certain standard 
of integrity and efficiency. Now. how is it with us? 
We have not anything of the kind. We shift our rulers 
every few years. With us the people arc the rulers — we 
have no class of permanent rulers at all, no people in 
power all the time. Now. what is the effect of this? 
In the first place, the people consist of men who are 
absorbed in their private interests, and who have not the 
time to devote to the business of government; and then 
those persons whom wc elect to do the governing for 
us, they are only allowed to do it for a very short time, 
and when they get into power the first thing they have 
to consider is to requite the services of those who put 
them into power, with the offices in their gift; and very 
often, also, to secure the allegiance of those who can 
re-elect them to power. It is not that we are worse 
than England, that we are less moral and less capable. 
I do not think so for a moment. It is that our experi- 
ment is more difficult. What we are trying to do is 
vastly more difficult. We are trying to get along with- 
out a permanent class of rulers. England can bring the 
good men, the able men, to the front; but we have no 
such nucleus of permanent rulers. Well, here is our 
Phillippine Commission, with President Schurmann, 
8 



and it says that if we are going to govern the Philip- 
pines we must have men of the very highest class, pure, 
public-spirited, ef^ficient. We must pay them high sal- 
aries, we must keep them in office pernK'nently: and 
there is only one thing that this Commission has failed 
to tell us — how in the world we are going to get these 
men, and how we are going to keep them; how. under 
present conditions, we are going to get such men ap- 
pointed, in the long run? 

Now, suppose we take up the other question, and 
say. "Ought we to do what England has done?'' I do 
not think we ought, even if we could. The reason is 
this: that England has been successful in conferring 
certain palpable benefits upon subjects races, but she 
has not been successful in conferring what we must 
consider the highest benefit. The highest benefit has 
been sacrificed to certain immediate benefits. The Brit- 
ish rule in India has been successful in certain ways. 
The British have secured peace. They have secured 
impartial administration of justice in courts of law. 
They have built railroads. They have begun to tackle 
the problem of education, but it is far too early to say 
that they have been successful. Some of the wisest 
statesmen of England to-day are of the opinion that it 
might have been better for their country never to have 
touched India. Four-fifths of the population are still 
poor. The British are encamped in India as in a hos- 
tile land. And chief of all — the principal point of all — 
the English have not at all succeeded in stimulating 
self-government in India. The efforts in that direction 
seem to have met with very little success. Their rule 
is autocratic. They rule by force. They confer the 
palpable benefits — but the chief benefit they do not con- 
fer, which is the stimulating among people of the desire 
to work out their own salvation, to manage their own 

9 



affairs. It is far better for a people to learn to manage 
its own affairs, even if it is at the sacrifice of certain of 
the benefits of good government; better to have less 
good government, and more of the power, gradually 
acquired, of securing in the end good government. 
That is the great point, and in respect to *^hat I believe 
it is admitted by all concerned, English rule in India 
has not been a success. Now, so far as we arc con- 
cerned, we cannot adopt that method. We cannot rule 
autocratically. We cannot adopt the method of force. 
We cannot merely hold these people in subjection and 
say, "In return for the birthright which you sell us we 
will give you these palpable benefits." Autocracy and 
liberty cannot dwell together in the same political 
household. Autocracy is possible for the English 
without serious results upon their home government, 
because even their home government is essentially aris- 
tocratic; but subjection in the Philippines and liberty 
in the United States would not be possible. The re- 
action upon our own affairs, upon our own method of 
rule, of government at home, is what we most need to 
fear. Already there a'-e those in our m.idst who are 
sneering at the idea that government should rest on 
the consent of the governed, and who have proposed 
an amendment to that principle, viz: that government 
should rest on the consent of part of the governed, 
namely, of course, the wealthy part, the powerful part, 
the favored part. Let us rule in the Philippines with- 
out the consent of the governed, and we shall strengthen 
in our own midst those forces that believe in ruling 
without the consent of all the governed. Let us rule 
subject peoples in the Philippines, and the next thing 
will be the proposition to rule subject classes in the 
United States — the poor, uneducated and what not, they 
will be classed with those whose consent is unneces- 
lo 



sary, and we shall liavc a struggle. I do not say that 
we shall succunih in that struggle-, but we shall have a 
struggle in our own midst, the portentous evils of 
which I, for one, care not even in imagination to face. 
We cannot afford it — cannot afford it commercially; we 
do not need it. It wt)uld be a mistake. For the sake 
of escaping provincialism, that is folly. For the sake 
of our own government, for the sake of maintaining 
that principle that government must rest on the consent 
of all the governed, we cannot afiford to violate that 
principle. If we violate it once we shall simply open 
the door to further violation, and the very thing that 
we have stood for among the nations will be gone. 



For copies, address the Anti-Imperialist League of 
New York, 150 Nassau Street, or P. O. Box lui. New 
York City. 



liZ. ^UNOKtbb 



013 788 276 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 788 276 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5. Buffered 



